Having flown it for about 2000hrs and that was a while ago, it was imperative that the flight manual limitations be followed. What was it...186 KIAS in turbulance?..and further...a 'g' limitation. I'm getting old and can't remember all the numbers.
It seems to me that inflight stress analysis is giving present data..what is required more is, how can we guard against future wing shed problems...at a predicited flight path.
Unfortunately, equipment like that can't tell what the flight crew are going to do to the aircraft 30 seconds in advance.
An aircraft loaded with retardant or water is perfectly set up for an 'over g' load, if not handled properly. To transition from a 10,000 lb. payoad to an aircraft this is now loaded with just fuel, is a huge weight and load change. Even selective dump door operation, where partial loads are 'pickled-off', are significant in nature.
The major player will be handling technique and following the procedures. The biggest asset is speed control to conserve wing loading in situations like this. And that has to come from flight crew. A device as such won't prevent an overload, although a strain guage that can monitor stress is handy to have.
We were always careful, especially around thunderstorms with our aircraft. A herc driver's eyes would become wide as saucers at the sight of one! There were major wing ADs that made the spar and root area look like reinforced battlefield tank armor.
All the best in your research.